March 2014 - Her

Tadpole thinks:
(30% spoiler, 100% my opinion)

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single girl in possession of a good imagination must be in want of Joaquin Phoexin.


In case you have been living under a rock, you know how excited I was for our movie of the month - Her. I even blogged about my anticipation! Not only is that cheesy opening line very applicable in this case, I'm a sucker for pretentious quirky romantic comedies*, such as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

* I can go on about romantic comedies all day. Please note that I call them romantic comedies instead of rom-coms, as I fear "rom-coms" may instantly remind you of formulaic chick flicks that I enjoy waaaay too much for my own good. But really, there are wonderful rom-coms out there which appeal to all tastes.

I saw Her a little more than a month ago. I was so excited that I attended a Valentine's Day special early screening. Repeat: Valentine's Day. Essentially a screening for couples? I very much enjoyed my one-on-one date with Joaquin, thanks for asking.

To be honest, I don't think I'm in a good position to discuss or dissect this movie. Before Theodora and me have decided to write about Her on here, I was going to do a review over at my personal blog. But IT WAS SO HARD TO WRITE ABOUT THIS MOVIE. It still is hard, maybe even more so now my hot date was five weeks ago. But I shall try, and persevere...

I like Her. Perhaps because I have to like it? After all, I have been excited for three months. But there don't seem to be reasons to like it other than:

1. JOAQUIN AS THEODORE TWOMBLY
2. the name Theodore Twombly
3. AMY ADAMS
4. pretentious clever dialogues that clearly are Facebook Favourite Quotations material
5. literally laugh-out-loud funny scenes, such as the scene with the foul-mouthed video game alien voiced by the director Spike Jonze and the scene with Amy showing her OS friend the easter egg in her video game
6. the ambient score. Well done, Arcade Fire and Owen Pallett (Y)
7. awesome production design
8. low constrast, paste colour scheme, the cinematography and etc...
9. cool premise... I hate how non-descriptive the word "cool" is but I have recently noticed I use it a lot in real-life conversation...
10. THE MOON SONG, but I was expecting a super romantic scene to go with this song but meh



So there are plenty of reasons to really like this movie. I'm positive that there are plenty more. But I was expecting myself to ADORE it. I hate having expectations. By the end of the movie, I didn't even feel "let down". I simply knew I had been having the wrong sort of expectations.

All along, I had been expecting a romantic movie that would make me swoon and go awwwwww and pretend I'm Samantha and that Joaquin is really flirting with me. But MAN, THIS MOVIE IS CREEPY. If you can look past its creepiness, it's witty, fun and pleasing to the eyes. If only you can. I may not be as open-minded as I would like to think, but there are moments that genuinely made me want to cringe, for example: The first time Theodore and Samantha "had sex". She said "I want you inside me", is that a metaphor or is it really an explicit/clichéd description of the act of sex? I don't know. But the creepy part is that scene was extremely breathy and then the scene went black but the sound was still there.

Then there are other issues:

1. I like an emotional man, but Theodore is too wussy sometimes it's unrealistic.

2. Samantha is a bitch that I couldn't care less for. Is it deliberate that we know she's a computer and not a human being who cares about feelings? But then they made her so sweet at first! Well, I guess there are lots of human arseholes out there who are worse than Samantha.

3. I DON'T LIKE THE ENDING. Why did it get so philosophical towards the end? And so suddenly? I know Samantha befriended Alan Watts but that philosophical twist was really sudden. Not a fan.

4. To get a futuristic cityscape, some parts of Her were shot in Shanghai. This means in Spike Jonze's head, LA will look like Shanghai a decade or so later. I'm rather proud. But this long scene set in the metro/tube/underground really gets on my nerves. On the train, the passengers all happen to be Chinese extras who broke the fourth wall. There are visible Chinese characters in the platform, then BOOM, the next shot it's LA again, with English signs and passengers of various ethnic backgrounds. Inconsistency annoys the crap out of the perfectionist me.

Perhaps if I had seen without any expectation or revisited it with a different set of expectations, I would have liked it more. Or perhaps Her is really just a cool-concepted aesthetically-alluring clever film that lures you into thinking not loving it is a problem. If so, perhaps I should play along...

Dear Her,

You're great. Very well-deserved Oscar Best Original Screenplay Winner. Everybody loves you. But I was expecting something else and you crept me out, even if only slightly.

It's not you, it's me.

Love,
Florence

Letter written by me, not Theodore Twombly from beautifulhandwrittenletters.com

-------------------------

Fish thinks:

Spoilers. Lots of them.

“It’s like I’m reading a book… and it's a book I deeply love. But I’m reading it slowly now. So the words are really far apart and the spaces between he words are almost infinite. I can still feel you… and the words of our story… but it’s in this endless space between the words that I’m finding myself now.”

This is one of my favorite lines in Her. The script is so beautifully written and deserves recognition. Fair enough, director and writer Spilke Jonze got the candy for his brilliant work.

When Florence first showed me the poster and the synopsis, Her immediately tops my watch-list. The plot sets in 2025 and tells the story of a lonely man Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix), who bought an artificially intelligent operation system that has its consciousness and calls itself Samantha (Scarlett Johansson). The two console each other and become emotionally attached.

I would like to discuss the two aspects of the plot. First, the fact that Theodore writes personal love letters on behalf of clients for a living is saddening. Although Theodore’s proses are beautiful and this reveals his talented and sensitive character, it brings out the broad message that people nowadays have increased reluctance or inability to communicate. Theodore observes a special thing about his client’s tooth, quote it in the letter that is completed with the stretch of his imagination. Because of technology, the letters could be paradoxically designed as handwritten with a tailor-made font for each letter. Scenes of Theodore walking back home on the skyline and riding the metro are deliberately constituted of mumbling people deep in conversation with their OS or phones, inducing a sense of alienation. This highlights how technology widens the distance between people rather than to facilitate communication between them.

I am not entirely satisfied with the ending of the story. Instead of a revelation of Theodore’s character, it is Samantha who realizes that she belongs to a more profound reality and that true happiness could not be attained for both of them if she didn't leave. The ending features Theodore and his friend Amy (Amy Adams) leaning towards each other and looking at the skyscraper with a sense of loss. If it was Theodore who left Samantha, it would be better for he would have picked up by himself the courage to face his weaknesses and past, and to move on.

However, I appreciate the motif of the film. Jonze gives a revolutionary view on what is a relationship actually is. Love between humans and OS- how would you think about it? Theodore asks Amy if he is with Samantha because he is “not strong enough for a real relationship”. Amy answers, “You don't think it's a real relationship?” I would have perhaps acted like Theodore’s wife Catherine (Rooney Mara), incredulous about the absurd idea of love between humans and an intangible consciousness. Does love really require a physical form? While initially Theodore’s colleague laughs at the idea of love between an incompatible pair, he later supports Theodore and even goes on a double date with him. However, Samantha later finds a surrogate acting upon her will to make love with Theodore, and Theodore feels out of league because that is not Samantha. Jonze would like the audience to reflect upon their own definition of relationships and the constituents of it. Is true love not limited physically, and could succumb the challenges of discrimination, verdict and social norms? Or is it precisely the opposite?

Or, if I should quit romanticizing, Jonze tries highlight the escapist character of Theodore in the film, that he is incapable of “facing the real challenges of marriage”, quoting Catherine. Is he seeking justification from Samantha who would always “listens to you, understands you, and knows you”, according the OS One Advertisement? Indeed, Theodore has phone sex (“now I’m putting the dead kitten around your neck!”) and refuses to have a further relationship with his blind date (Olivia Wilde). When he cannot contact Samantha, he freaks out worrying that she’s gone, and questions her about her new friends. He wants attention but at the same time is unwilling to commit. When the blind date accuses him of being a creep, he almost believed in her. Jonze creates a multi-layered and contradictory character that resembles our yearning yet insecure human nature. We could see some bits of Theodore in ourselves.

The cinematography is, as Florence accurately described, “beautiful graphically”. Many sophisticatedly crafted concrete elements fit together and make the sci-fi film hybrid, with literary sensitivity and aesthetics flowing in its veins. I like the use of colors in the film. Instead of a cold futuristic setting with white translucent light and metallic automatic doors, there are vivid, solid colors flying on clothes and desks in the office, at the same time blending harmoniously with the more monotonous earthy background, creating a colorful and cozy cyber space fit for living.

Costume design – impeccable *dramatic hand gesture*. Theodore’s fashion is becoming an icon- the simplistic two pieces creates a casual yet poetic image with its slight twist of high-waist wool trousers. I am inspired by Amy Adam’s retro tomboy statement. The nude, tight and sleeved vest matched with a nude shirt together with ankle pants, oxford shoes get along very well with Adam’s chic updo hair that finishes with a touch of femininity.

Enough with the fashion blab, let’s get back to the film. Florence and I really like the soundtrack- we couldn't stop humming The Moon Song until one of us started on Let it Go. Florence said Karen O casually made the song up at her dining room table, which makes it more romantic than it is. Photographs by Arcade Fire is another of my favorite- the breezy melody commemorating a relationship that exceeds physical boundary is sad yet beautiful. In the scene on the beach when Samantha again plays another song she wrote for their relationship (Song on the beach which says it all), Theodore surveys the people around him, all of whom have their backs on him- signifying rejection and detachment to the awkward love between them. However, Theodore couldn't care less, and he closes his eyes to fully immerse into the sound.

To sum up, Her is one amazing film that discusses relationships and the desire to connect. My favorite scene is when Theodore closes his eyes and walk around the theme park with Samantha as the guide, where he tastes the exhilarating perspective of another person experiencing the world. He laughs freely and begins to open himself towards Samantha. Throughout the film Jonze tries to manifest to the audience the infinite possibilities of relationships, and in this scene, it liberates. Relationship isn’t just about happiness. It’s about discovery. Her will always be something in my heart.♥

January 2014 - Gravity

Tadpole thinks:
(spoiler-free until I warn you)

What do you think when you think space movies? Gigantic spaceships, alien invasion, meeting extraterrestrial lives… I’m not usually a fan of sci-fi, but Gravity is different. Gravity is an experience. I wouldn’t say it’s the best film I’ve seen this year, but it’s certainly nothing like what I’ve seen before. It will keep you mesmerised for days and days.

I urge everyone to run to the nearest cinema and watch Gravity in the biggest screen available. It's an experience only possible in a dark room with a giant silver screen. Please don’t sue me if you throw up halfway through the film though. Nausea guranteed. (Simmy did really smell something funny in the theatre. Anyone threw up at the 5:45p.m. screening at Palace IFC on 18 January 2014?)

Telling you to catch a movie does not translate into me thinking it’s a perfectly amazing film. I have issues particularly with the plot, or lack thereof. But is plot an essential part of this whole Gravity experience? Maybe not, probably not. The visuals and sounds will keep your senses occupied that it isn’t until you've gone home would you discover the problems with Gravity.

When the lights are off, it’s easy to be drowned in the world created by Alfonso Cuarón. The visuals. The aurals. The alternating action and quietness. Wow, just wow. All of these are so overwhelming that I’ve missed the much talked-about shot in which the "camera" zoomed through Dr Ryan Stone’s visor. When we speak of experimental films, we usually have independent so-artsy-to-the-point-you-don’t-understand films in mind. Gravity has arthouse elements, but there are also plenty of big budget action sequences and CGI, lotssss of CGI. It still feels like an experimental film to me though, simply because it’s so different. It has re-written cinematic rules and marked a milestone in film history.

Yet at the end of the day, movies are movies, a story-telling device. If I want to see something that wows me, I can simply turn on the DVD player and watch The Blue Planet (we happen to have the boxset at home). Penned by Alfonso Cuarón and his son Jonás, the story of Gravity is pretty weak. Do they think a stronger and more layered story will shift the focal point from the special effects that they have worked so hard on? Well, at least there’s a story. I should recall my experience with The Tree of Life before I complain.

(SPOILERS ARE COMING!!)

My biggest problem with the screenplay: telling us everything*. I doubt my two years of English Literature have trained me into a thematic point/symbolism spotting machine. If the curtains are blue, I'll say they are blue and not that the author is sad or bullshit like that. Ryan’s daughter died. She had to let Matt go for he was weighing her down outside the International Space Station. We get it. We don’t need Clooney telling us how we should "learn to let go" AND even coming back to life to give us a lecture on moving on.

* Possible display of double standard here, but I think it’s OK for a silly movie to do symbolisms outrightly (actually, do silly movies still care about meanings / moral stories these days?). But for an Oscars contestant, it seems rather silly to have lines like “you have to learn to let go”. That foetus position shot is amazing though.

Now I would like to talk about: the toughest scene in Gravity according to Cuarón:

Throughout the movie, Sandra Bullock’s rather annoying groaning and wailing could be heard. Rest assured, I couldn’t help but giggled a little bit. Though this is funny in a way, her performance is very effective (remember she acted to nothing while being strapped into a box). For a certain scene, at first I thought she was over-acting. But how else are you gonna play a person who was expecting death? Bullock’s portrayal of Dr Ryan Stone in that scene is golden – the ultimate display of sorrow and hopelessness.

Then came the "rebirth" of Matt Kowalski. The dream sequence. I remember in secondary school, our teacher told us to stop writing fantasies and surreal incidents off as dreams. The dreamworld is not an excuse, or so they say. If it’s good enough for big budget Hollywood movies, why is it not good enough for F.1 Creative Writing… ? OK, enough sarcasm. That scene could have been worse… like Matt came back into the pod to give Ryan a kiss?

People seem to have problems with the part when Bullock told Clooney to say hello to her daughter. Have they ever lost someone important? I have. And I know how the day you last saw that person and the things you wanted to say to that certain someone, would replay in your head for four years, ten years or more. I think Bullock nailed that part. And her tears flew out of the screen and towards me in confirmation. LOL. Cheesy 3D.

I would love to see Gravity in IMAX 3D, but I missed it when it first came out. Only the airport cinema has IMAX 3D re-runs. Unfortunately, going to a cinema so far away to catch a film is too much of a luxury for me to enjoy.

Gravity 2. Mission: Bring Matt Kowalski back to Earth.

-------------------------

Fish thinks:

*Spoiler Alert, couldn't help!*

Went into the movies merely holding on a single fact: Gravity’s nominated for the Oscars. Usually, the sci-fi genre isn’t the first that I’d pick from a bunch of on-screens. Romance, comedies or drama have always been my first choice. However, Gravity proved to be something more. Although I'm still Team Star Trek, it is a movie that is worth pondering, a captivating perspective as compared to its neighboring rivals.

The movie didn't seem long: it only occurred to me that the film was ending when Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) arrives the shore coughing and gasping with joy as she caresses the sand as if she’s encountered her lost lover. Then I exclaimed to Florence about the how quick time's passed. I would credit this to the film’s skillful and sophisticated camera shots and scenes, instilling a sense of timelessness into every frame.

While each shot is actually pretty long, I, as an audience, was not bored but, emotionally drawn into the drastic situation Stone and Astronaut Matt Kowalski (the amazing George Clooney) is facing in space.  The cinematography and graphics are so stunningly realistic and beautiful that I was all the way feeling intense for Stone, since she could have missed grasping on the holds on the spaceship and be dragged away with zero gravity to outer space. The 3D effect- stunning. The acrolith debris are very threatening and I held my breath every time they appear on screen. The view of Earth,is of course, breath taking.

“There, you can see the Ganges River. Isn’t it beautiful?”

After sacrificing himself for the survival of Stone, Kowalski speaks to her through the radio as he is drifting away, having his last grand tour around the planet. The audience and the characters then shared a sad yet astounded moment to take in the gorgeous scenery from Space above. I found this bit very magical- to have the capacity to appreciate the sheerest yet greatest beauty from a panoramic angle before death. This gem of wisdom is very hard to attain throughout life, and is perhaps, the most precious of them all.

The long and continuous shots give the audience a broad and clear picture of what was happening, and depicts a sense of urgency.  The scene where Stone discovers fire in the spaceship and then proceeds to escape was so pressing, and I had to praise Bullock for her outstanding act, pouring out a rainbow of internal struggles within one shot.

As the movie progresses, the audience gradually know more about the stories of Stone and Kowalski, both of whom have their astronaut helmets on and the facial expressions barely visible till much later. The voices of the actors and actresses are, I would say, a composition of their fine acting as well, because it is through the voices that we learn about their emotions, and this refreshing perspective draws us closer to the emotional journeys of the characters.

Also, the script is very well written. Because the faces of the characters are mostly hidden, I later realized how brilliant and informative the dialogues between Stone and Kowalski are as they “unpremeditatedly” revealed their personality, backgrounds and sentiments, without being pretentious and retaining a sense of casualness.

However, there are minor details that I didn't enjoy. The monotonous spaceship scenes take up quite a huge portion of the film, and I got a bit too much of it till the end. Moreover, Stone’s conversation with Aningaaq in the Chinese Spaceship is a little creepy, not to mention very odd as well especially when Stone starts to bark. Despite being aware that Stone has been frightened about her fate to a point where she is devastated and loses her mind, the whole thing added up together is nonetheless strange (but overall we find Bullock very charming and Flor and I had a major girl crush on her).

To add on, the continuous accidents and threats rippling throughout the whole film (the debris and the collision, the lack of oxygen, the letting go of Kowalski, the fire, the drainage of the battery, etc.) did keep the audience busy, but it wasn't entirely convincing as they were waived quite with ease and little effort, considering the time Stone used to solve the problems. 

Gravity, in a nutshell, depicts a series of struggles of the humans in Space, with Stone ultimately picking up the courage to fight for life till the end. This gives me epiphany- what is life without constant debates, conflicts and solutions? The simple message could be said as a cliché, but imagine you're Stone, the one who is on the spaceship. This gave me a brand new point of view towards life. The Space itself is an enormous paradox- an area that is incredibly perplexing to the current progress of human intelligence, so perilous yet beautiful, a place where every step could potentially be the path to death.  Should you be in this expansion of wonder, what would you do? What amount of time and courage would it cost to overcome the bewilderment towards the vast power of nature and let faith fill up every pore of your skin, to venture into the haunting unknown?

This is Stone’s choice.

“All right, the way I see it, there’s only two possible outcomes. Either I make it down there in one piece and I have one hell of a story to tell… or I burn up in the next ten minutes.
Either way, whichever way… no harm, no foul!
Because either way…. It’ll be a hell of a ride.”

September 2013 - The Internship

Tadpole Thinks:
(SPOILER-FREE, for the first time in forever)

Wow, that last post was long!

This month for our comeback, we've decided to review something lighter. And I promise this review will be an actual review, not a rant about the director's choice of camera angles / the actor's singing voice or face / etc... here we go:

Many have said that The Internship is a two-hour Google recruitment commercial. I don't care. Though I've just watched a film which spent a great deal of time on product placement and so I should have that idea incepted into my head, "product placement" didn't cross my mind while I was watching The Internship. I could see why people would say that. I don't know if Google had actually funded the production of the movie and I wasn't too eager to look that up... but they probably hadn't. Reason being: IT'S _ _ _ _ ING GOOGLE! And it's the very same reason why it doesn't bother me even if the film is essentially an advertisement.

Look, the film wouldn't have worked if it's about Yahoo! (...might have worked ten years ago) or say, Swire. They are great companies but they aren't Google. The film might have worked if it's about bulge bracket investment banks but we've all heard unglamorous things about them, while for Google, we've only heard great things (also mentioned in the film) - free food, cool office space and extremely smart co-workers... Guess now we could all get past the fact that The Internship made it like we should all bow down before Google... because maybe we really should?

If you could look past the fact that this film is almost a commercial, The Internship is a very enjoyable movie and I personally like it a lot. For the story, there's nothing new. It's the same old formula. It has its laugh-out-loud moments and touching moments. Some of the gags are extremely funny and relatable and I found myself laughing uncontrollably loud (with people staring, of course). I also found myself slightly touched at some points in the movie, but these moments aren't remarkably memorable and I honestly don't remember that touched feeling now. There are movies that touch you and make you want to turn your life around and change the world, this isn't one of them. But what do you expect? Though I should be fair and mention that this movie has made me consider changing my major to Computer Science for a night, but I've always enjoyed programming anyway. One thing I want to mention (and to remind myself) from personal experience which relates to the movie: if you could choose and afford your choice, always PURSUE YOUR DREAM! Life's too short to play it safe all the time.

The Internship ends with them saying that summer is "one hell of a summer" (come on, this isn't a spoiler! You thought that their summer would suck?). My summer has been "one hell of a summer" too. This review officially marks the end of my summer holiday... ahead of me awaits school work, various responsibilities and an internship (isn't it ironic... don't you think?). I wish everyone a great school (or work) year ahead!

Finally a review in which I seem genuinely pleased... why am I always so bitter? I highly recommend The Internship to those who want to have a good time and laugh really hard and unwind!


Fish Thinks:
*Spoiler Alert

I didn't expect much from the film, thinking it to be another Wedding Crashers type of comedy. However, Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn showed to me and the audience that they are capable to recreate a fresh image of themselves.

One of the things that make the film so laugh-out-loud funny is the brilliantly-created characters, whom each of them have their oddities and specialties, and together they sparked chemistry and splashed colors to the already fantastic plot line. Yo-yo the antisocial and reserved mama's boy is super hilarious and his brow-picking habit of self-punishment drove us all into tears of laughter. Lyle, Stuart and Neha are awkward yet lovable people, and the team's crazy way of dealing with challenges are immensely entertaining! Wilson and Vaughn's brotherhood is nothing new but heartwarming still as they stick together and overcome one obstacle and another.

Another thing I love about the film is that you can find the impossible within the possible. It may sound confusing, but would an office pause for a Quiddich Match for its employees? Where on earth could you find a food paradise in a workplace? The Google Office inspired us that incorporating work and play together actually boost up working incentives and stimulates more creative ideas. Also, in the last bit of the film when scores are calculated to see which intern team gets to be hired, a line hit me: "Google is for disseminating information and benefiting people's life". It really got me into thinking how search engines matters in our lives, and the great impact it actually has on us. A simple searching tool is in fact generated and constantly enhanced by a compact team of intelligent and forward brains, and perhaps because Google is infused in our lives that we overlooked its brilliance. The film manifested how people quietly do their jobs to create a better world for us to live in, and reminded us that we should not take things for granted.

I guess I could connect with the film because I'm a college student going to look for internship. I also am at the age of confronting the fears of choosing careers, struggling between dreams and reality, to take risks or to it safe. The Internship gave me butterflies as well as  insights to the path of career search, and perhaps, the attitude towards life. It's sort of like an inner voice that encourages the us to believe in our's own instincts and to grab the chance before it's too late.

The central message of The Internship is to tell people to be brave, try something new, and step out of their comfort zone. Ultimately, what audiences gained after watching the film may be courage to venture the unknown, or a sense of hope, believing that somewhere out there, something is waiting for you to find them, and to change your life.

January 2013 - Les Misérables

Tadpole thinks: (I've tried to minimise spoilers, but they're inevitable)

Whilst I am typing away at my laptop, Theodora’s at a Church activity. The previous line is vague hint at our respective feelings about Les Misérables. In case you don’t catch that, she likes it and I don’t*. Precisely that isn’t obvious, but I need an introduction to my Les Mis review… forgive me. Forgive me for the crappy intro now and the rant (which you probably won’t agree with) in advance.

* After all, faith is an important element in Les Mis. Having gone to a Catholic school for more than a decade, I know the teachings of repentance, forgiveness and sacrifice too well.

Oh, Les Misérables, how you have disappointed me! I have noticed two schools of thought for this film, namely – BEST MOVIE OF 2012 OMGZ and ok this is alright. You should know I advocate the latter school. BEST MOVIE OF 2012 OMGZ seems to dominate though… an interesting phenomenon to note, many of those who are of this school of thought think Les Misérables is an English name that's pronounced as LES MIS-SER-RUH-BUH. I sound mean here, but please do not promote a film as the best film of the year without having done any research. A film is not a mere two-hour entertainment. It is a lesson, be it history or moral. If you enjoy your cinematic experience, do some background research and teach yourself something! I understand that some people may not realise the name Les Misérables is French, since the film itself is English-speaking… but provided you have common sense/have done a bit of research, you will know it’s French!

Besides, I find it bothersome that some fans have no reasons to support their love for the film. As a fiery Aries, heated debate is my thing. I find it uninspiring when you are one of the million blind fans who say something is amazing just because 999999 other people say so.

We're already 300 words in but I've only been raving with no arguments to support my position. To differentiate myself from the blind fans, I am going to voice out my opinions:

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t hate Les Mis. I just didn’t enjoy it as much as I had imagined I would. You know when you had high hopes for a film and it didn’t live up to your expectation? The film would seem to be worse than it actually was if you didn’t expect so much. I'd suspected this is the case for Les Mis until I had a week to think about it. I also suspect you readers are hating me, with your blood boiling. “GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE!” you may say. To put out the fire burning in your heart, let me begin by saying what I like about Les Mis. This will be short as you have heard so many good things that any more will begin to bore you.

1. Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman are SO good. We have heard only good things about Hathaway’s short performance. I’m with the majority here. She is stunning. I was quite bored even before the film hit its 30-minute mark. But Hathaway’s “I Dreamed A Dream”? It converted me from a hater (I never really liked her until now) to a fan. As for Jackman, he’s astonishing as Jean Vanjean. You would not say bad things about an actor who shines throughout the whole of the 162 minutes of the film, would you? I was genuinely surprised by his performance and his amazing voice… then I remembered his performance at the 81st Oscars.

2. Tom Hooper’s choice to use the live-sung approach. Live-sung is definitely not new but it has never been used in such a large production. A lot more work had to be put into the production of Les Mis because of this. It was worth it though, since this approach gave the film the much-needed raw emotions.

Now, I’ll talk about what I don’t like. One of the main reasons why I don’t like Les Mis is because I don’t feel the “connection”.

1. It's choppy and fragmented. I contribute this as one of the reasons for my lack of emotions for the film. It’s supposed to be a tear-jerker… so I should really feel the tension and the sadness and etc. But my confusion overcastted my other emotions. Why is this happening? What’s going on? What did I miss? I believe there’s too much to be packed into the film so it has to move at a fast pace, missing some details here and there. It’s OK as this often happens for adaptations. Well, to be very honest, I haven’t read/seen much about the original story so I don’t know if the original story is this fragmented as well. But there’s another point I want to talk about – the story itself is too MELODRAMATIC. As a rational human being, some parts are just not believable… then again, I don’t know about the original story. But the film's killed my interest to read the Victor Hugo’s novel.

2. Camera angles. I didn’t go to film school and certainly don’t know much about films, but at certain times I wish I could tell Tom Hooper he should drop the extreme close-ups. I really like them in The King’s Speech, and this Hooper signature is the one of the main reasons why the “I Dreamed A Dream” sequence is so successful. Close-ups bring us close to the actors so we could see every emotion, every twitch of their noses and every water molecule in their eyes. In short, close-ups are extremely powerful. Yet sometimes, too much is too much. Close-ups lose their effect when they are over-used. As an audience member, my gut instinct told me that I wanted to see more than Eddie Redmayne’s cute freckled face during the student revolution scenes. My brain was shouting inaudibly to the silver screen ZOOM OUT FFS.

3. Russell Crowe. I’m not going to talk about his singing because many have, but this point is also related to the live-sung approach. Obviously, using this approach is unfavorable to actors/actresses without a good voice, the imperfect singing of Russell Crowe didn’t really bother me. His face did. Why did he look so uncomfortable?

4. A minor comment. For musicals, I often get the Original Soundtrack (OST) so I could preach to all my family and friends the songs from the films, a.k.a. singing them out loud really badly in their face… but the Les Mis OST is barely listenable. I listen to it regular, but not on repeat. The songs were not recorded in a studio (hence the album is called “highlights”), theu were recorded during the “live-sung” performance. For most songs, there is no music at first, then the music will slowly fade in. Occasionally, the film’s sound effects would be recorded in and I would jump at a sudden bang.

5. I found myself checking my watch constantly during the screening… Am I alone here? Allow me to say, the film itself was quite hard to pull through.

6. I love being emotional and crying over films. I cried at Les Mis, but I felt that it had failed to evoke my emotions. Somebody told me I would need tissues just five minutes in, so I brought two extra packets with me. I only needed one tissue paper. What a bummer.

If you’ve skipped to this paragraph, hello! I’ll repeat myself – I don’t hate Les Misérables. I just don’t like it as much as I thought I would or as much as other people do. I’d give it 5 out of 10? I can’t bring myself to tell you I love the film because I don’t.

Edited on 11 January 2013: Oscar nominations came out yesterday. Lots of people have predicted previously that Les Mis would receive a double-digit number of nominations. Turned out it only received 8. Bad day for Les Mis, but perhaps it’s really overrated… Though the Oscars aren’t always credible :P

-------------------------
Fish thinks: (yep, spoiler alert here too)

Les Misérables, the film-musical fusion dish that was instantly craved by the population since its publication, is surely a grand production. Family members, many friends and reviewers on IMDB all agreed simultaneously without hesitation that it was a splendor. Personally, I found the movie entertaining and moving at points. Yet, to those who described Les Mis as “impeccable”, I beg to differ.

Let me start with the actors. Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway enhance the film with their excellent performances portraying Jean Valjean and Fantine. Jackman surprised me with his bloodshot eyes and cringing back at the very first scene. Knowing him merely from X-men and Australia, I always thought he could scarcely convey emotions from his stiff face and eyes that seems only capable of delivering rage. Les Mis proved him otherwise. Not only he could act, but he could sing like a lark too. Jackman’s most remarkable act is the scene when he struggled between good and evil inside the church. He expresses a series of sentiments, while singing and pacing to and fro the altar- one take through. I was amazed seeing him transform from despair, realization, anger, and confusion to swelling with confidence and passion. Say no more, applauses!

Hathaway, though not as eye-catching as Jackman, shone in her own charming way. Fantine’s terrible encounters and lovely voice earned the sympathy of the audiences, despite only having a short time on screen. And salute to her having those beautiful locks of hair chopped off! She displayed respect for her profession, and evoke ours for her.

Russel Crows was a bit disappointing, and as a result he is the one I bitched about most of the time. He seems rather reserved and expressionless, but it could attribute to his character being a conservative Javert who feels numbs striving to withhold his values that contradict with reality. In fact, the deeper I review, I realized I had exaggerated on the actors’ performances and that only Jackman and Hathaway left me flabbergasted. The movie created a lot of illusions.

Let’s move on to the plot. I think some of the scenes could be further developed or explained- examples include the Jean Valjean’s dying process, and Valjean’s father-daughter relationship with the grown Cosette. The rushing scenes attribute to the rich plot of Les Mis, and the plot could be trimmed to produce longer and more emotionally profound scenes.

Furthermore, I just couldn’t get myself to cry despite the plot being touchy and all, because I am conscious that the music wants to draw our emotions. Before, I was worried that I am heartless and cold-blooded because while I shuffled on my seat for 159 minutes tearless, my sister’s sniffs could be heard since the very beginning of the film. To analyze the cause rationally, isn’t it almost certain that a person may be moved under such music with such an intensity and facial expressions with such dramatic vigor?

I must confess I really don’t know much about the background and story of Les Mis (guiltily, because I had studied English Literature during high school), and actually have mistaken the revolution held by Marius and Enjolras as the French Revolution (lucky I didn't take History!), so perhaps this contributed to the doubts I have for the film.

What I like about the film is the fluidity the scenes flow from one to another, and that the last scene adequately wrapped up the play, pointing out that the ultimate paradise after death sweeps all the pain and indignities away and brings them eternal happiness- all the endurings are worth it. It was also a pleasure to admire the handsome and vibrant faces of the young men, whose hot blood sizzles with passion for reform and patriotism. Sacha Cohen (The Dictator) and Helena Bonham Carter (The King’s Speech) make a dazzling pair whose quirky gestures and wicked flashes of expressions caused the audience to roll with laughter. Minor characters like Eponine and the little boy who are both killed during the revolution emit their own rays of sunshine through their voices.

My favorite scene is the very beginning when Jean Valjean and the slaves sing out the sufferings of their endless labor, “look down, look down...” It scare the hell out of me that I couldn’t even recognize the disheveled Jackman. Ipso facto, the intensity of misery already sinks into the audience, and lasts throughout the film. I could hardly breathe. “24601!” The serial number is hauntingly impactful. I could feel Valjean’s helplessness when he was repeatedly addressed with numbers instead of his own name.

Christian friends of mine suggested me to read the film in a religious angle. I shall do so when I rewatch Les Mis another time, because oddly enough, though I was touched by Valjean's pursuit of truth and spiritual fulfillment as a Christian, I didn't have an epiphany regarding the religion when I come to think of it. In a nutshell, Les Misérables is a good film, but it could go deeper. I’ll just end my review abruptly but I hope you see my point:)

P.S. I apologize for uploading my review late! Happy new year to y'all!

October 2012 - Ruby Sparks

Tadpole thinks:

I’m writing this review as soon as I can. Because I know what kind of person I am. Just before the movie started, Theodora and I (yes, of course we were watching this together!) had a discussion on giving grades / scores to movies. I told her I tended not to grade movies now because my standards fluctuate, and the impressions the movie has made on me change too… so a movie that gets an A today may not even receive a C tomorrow. This is the reason why I am reviewing Ruby Sparks as soon as I have access to my computer. This review’s gonna be a honest and straight review, written before everything gets washed away from my head, though I may just not be sure what to write yet…

I have a love-hate relationship with Ruby Sparks. I love how the ending, or rather, the whole movie, is up to your interpretation (what’s real, and what’s not?). I love Calvin’s beautiful white spacious home and full bookshelves. I love Paul Dano and Zoe Kazan’s on-screen chemistry. I love the Los Feliz neighbourhood. I love how Calvin has a dog. I love how Calvin’s a writer. I love how this movie is almost like an ode to the literary world. I love how The Catcher in the Rye is featured, though I doubt it’s still considered as one of my favourite books.

But I hate the characters, no one’s too likable I’m afraid. I hate a particular scene which made me feel so embarrassed for Ruby. I hate how quirkiness becomes too weird. I hate how I loved the first half of the movie but hated the rest. I hate how I could see Calvin should be a loner for the rest of his life only during the very first few scenes. I hate how unromantic the love story is. I hate how I felt a little bit bored. I hate how disappointed I was. No, I wasn’t that disappointed… but the disappointment was in the same league as what I got after watching Hugo. Maybe I really was quite disappointed. If I were to compare Ruby Sparks with a film that I’ve seen, what would it be? I can’t possibly name a single movie… so I’ll let Movie Maths do the job. Here we go. ( Sunshine Cleaning * Midnight in Paris ) + To Rome with Love (for the café scene) + 500 Days of Summer (I hate myself for saying this but they have quirky characters?) + Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Dream or reality? Vs. Memory or happening now?).

Wish the audience would laugh with me at the funny parts (not exactly a comedy but I like laughing). Maybe the experience would have been better? To the couple occupying seats C6 and C7 during the 3:45 pm screening on 15 October 2012 at Palace IFC, please, don’t ever kick my chair again. Thank you.

-------------------------

Fish thinks:

If you talk about the theme, Ruby Sparks was as expected. Instead of being the typical Hollywood love stories with a sparkling ending, the movie delivered a deeper social message about love and relationships: too much control over your lover’s life would only lose yourself and lead to suffocation of the parties in the relationship.

Paul Dano and Zoe Kazan is a captivating couple. They aren't exactly photogenic in every film frame, but they are charming in their own unique, preppy style. It is delightful to know that though Calvin and Ruby separated, they are a couple in real life. I have to say I enjoy watching them when they were madly in love together. It is quite tempting to have another half by your side, isn't it?

However, I must confess the movie disappointed me in several aspects. I’ll start with the wrong choice of casts. I think Chris Messina doesn't suit the role “Harry”(Florence disagrees? I remember she said Harry is funny). Not only does his looks display an entire foreign set of genes from Calvin, but his acting seems inadequate in portraying the playboy-ish but caring elder brother (or he was over the top, and become a bit too annoying for me). 

Moreover, I thought the movie would be funnier. I thought there would sweet and cheesy moments or cute dialogues that would make me laugh out loud. Strangely, I remained quite tense throughout the film. I guess it was because I have had a clue about the direction the movie was going to head to and I am NOT happy about it. So, thus. Or it could be me having a weak sense of humor (YES IT IS).

Perhaps it was because I had expected too much from the movie, and that the ugly reality of how relationships could evolve into ruined my fantasies  Of course, things have a good side and a bad one too, so credits should be given to the film which revealed that face and refreshed our minds. But gosh, I do feel poignant afterwards. The complexity of 2 people intrigues me. I hope I would eventually know more about it, as well as how to cope with it. 

Houston, We Have A Problem

Because of a technical problem, Theodora and I could not review our scheduled October book in due course.

BUT there's something exciting coming up!

What is it? I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.


* Three Cups of Tea: One Man's Mission to Promote Peace... One School at a Time by Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin is now our November book.

September 2012 - Before I Go to Sleep by S. J. Watson

Tadpole thinks:

May not the best way to start off my career at Fishing in the Tadpole Kingdom, but I’m gonna be genuinely honest with you – it’s been more than two weeks since I finished Before I Go to Sleep. You know what that means.

Memories define us. So what if you lost yours every time you went to sleep?

This is the tagline of Before I Go to Sleep. Christine, our protagonist, suffers from a strange case of amnesia. Every morning she wakes up with no recollection of her name and her near past. Sometimes she thinks she’s a child, sometimes a young adult. Her husband, or “the man who’s sleeping in bed next to her”, will remind her who she is, who he is and their daily routine. Occasionally, at her demand, he’ll fill in her memory gaps. On the other hand, at the advice of a doctor she’s secretly seeing, Christine’s begun writing down what she does and she learns daily. The journal helps her to put the pieces together, but the same journal leads her into questioning her trust in everything.

Every review you see will be raving at you about how entertaining, how intriguing and how much of a page-turner Before I Go to Sleep is, so I’ll your spare time. It had me put myself in Christine’s shoes. If I were Christine, what would I do? I haven’t been a 47-year-old married woman, but neither has Watson (I believe?). Yet he portrayed Christine so well. I was absolutely surprised when I learnt that Watson is a man.

On a side note, the perfectionist in me always does relish details. This time, non-perfectionists will have a chance to appreciate them as well. In this book, many tiny little details are actually hints, which make you go “that makes sense now!” towards the end.

But the perfectionist in me also has problems with this book.

1. I don’t want to spoil it for you, but I have to. After being on the same emotional roller coaster as Christine, we expect a shocking ending. Well, we do have it here, a shockingly cheesy one. Confessedly I haven’t come up with a better ending… but I’m not the writer!
2. My mum constantly reminds me to take the fictional world with a pinch of salt. Still, some aspects of the book irk me too much. The readers aren't stupid! We aren't going to fall for implausible and ridiculous explanations.
3. The timeline was difficult to follow at first. Though I seem to be the only person on earth with this issue.
4. The book got quite boring after 100+ pages, nonetheless it was all good after it entered the gentle slope towards the climax.
5. Not a fifth problem, but I have nowhere else to put it – I’M EXCITED FOR THE FILM. Nicole Kidman’s set to play Christine. As much as I love Nicole, I think Tilda Swinton is a better choice.

No wonder Faber Academy features this book in all of their advertisement. I definitely want to enrol in one of their writing classes now. A 3-day course next time I’m in London then?

Theodora and I haven’t started our regular meet-up-for-discussion regime yet. In fact I don’t know how we’re gonna do it or if we’ll be doing it at all. For those who have read, or are interested in the book, please have a look at the official book club notes.

-------------------------

Fish thinks:

It is a nice recommendation from Florence, or Tadpole. I temporarily put down another thriller Angels and Demons (another suggestion for our archive?) just to finish it in a blow. Just like what the reviews have stated, it was a total page-turner. You can pick it up anywhere and immerse into the storyline at once. Despite the gripping plot being slightly less intricate then I have imagined (*spoiler alert* I thought Dr. Nash was more involved in Christine’s life and there would be something more about “Ed”), S. J. Watson’s narrative style and arrangements are impressive, building up great suspense and lure readers to continue Christine’s mental journey. Here I have to disagree with Flor: the story gets more interesting as it proceeds and readers get more light on the protagonist’s shattered life (but it does gets tiring to start a new diary entry every time the solving of the mystery nears). Also, I credit Watson for surprising readers with many twists in the story.

YES, the ending is cheesy, illogical and an obvious rush. Everything ended abruptly and unexcitedly. It would be great if the suspense continues, but I’ve a lack of idea what comes next. On the other hand, I see Florence’s point regarding the it-makes-sense hints throughout the book. I feel the same and the realization hits me like a wave.

Overall speaking, Before I Go To Sleep is a fun read. I didn't gain anything from it specifically…but is it a necessity to have a message behind every story? I enjoyed it, I savored it, and that's all it matters. Will recommend it to anyone!

P.S. Am excited for the film as well (There’s a film coming? Great news!) but too agree that Nicole Kidman is not right for Christine. Tilda is nice but I always portray Famke Janssen (X-Men) as the character in my mind!

PROMISE: A longer post next time *winks*

-------------------------

Readers, we’re always up for a discussion! Leave a comment or send us an e-mail, we’ll get back to you ASAP.